Original Article

Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials

2015, Vol. 17(6) 748–765
Mechanical ! The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
characterization of sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1099636215597667

asymmetric high density jsm.sagepub.com

polyethylene/hemp
composite sandwich
panels with and without
a foam core
Azam Kavianiboroujeni1, Alain Cloutier2 and
Denis Rodrigue1

Abstract
This work investigates the effects of different design parameters such as hemp content in
the skins (10–40% wt.), layer thickness (1 and 2 mm), and foaming agent content in the
core (0% wt., 0.6% wt. and 1.2% wt.) on the flexural properties of three layer sandwich
panels of hemp and high density polyethylene produced by compression molding. The
results show that hemp content was the most significant parameter for the flexural
properties of these panels. In addition, it was found that specific modulus and strength
(per unit weight) were 30% and 36% higher when using a foam core, respectively.

Keywords
Foam, wood plastic composite, compression molding, flexion, hemp, sandwich panel

Introduction
Recently, the demand for structural elements with lower weight, higher specific
strength, and lower environmental impact has increased. Among all the promising

1
Department of Chemical Engineering, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada
2
Department of Wood and Forest Sciences, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada

Corresponding author:
Denis Rodrigue, Pavillon Adrien-Pouliot, 1065 avenue de la Médecine, Université Laval, Quebec City, G1V
0A6 Canada.
Email: [email protected]
Kavianiboroujeni et al. 749

candidates, sandwich panels (multi-layer structures) based on wood plastic com-

posites (WPC) were developed and received great deals of attention. These struc-
tures are generally composed of two stiff skins and a light weight core. They are
designed to be used in applications requiring high bending stiffness and low density
[1]. In these structures, the main role of the skins is to bear bending loads and
improve flexural stiffness, while the role of the core is to keep the skins apart and
carry parts of the load, mostly shear [2,3]. Multi-layered structures with rigid cel-
lular core were shown to have higher specific stiffness and strength properties
compared to structures without a cellular core. The cellular structure allows
them to sustain large deformation while having better energy absorption capacity.
Gibson and Ashby investigated the general ideas of cellular materials and sand-
wich panels for different applications ranging from packaging to low weight build-
ing structures [4]. Other investigations focused on the effects of design parameters
and material selection on the overall performance of multi-layered structures. The
results showed that core density and thickness of the face materials were highly
important. Moreover, it was possible to control the mechanical performance, espe-
cially specific strength [5,6].
Sandwich structures have been used in packaging and material handling, aero-
space, marine, and automotive applications because light structures lead to
weight reduction and better insulation. Moreover, less fuel consumption and
CO2 emission to the environment are other important aspects. But, recently
these structures were used in civil engineering for building and construction
industries. This is why several investigations focused on part design to develop
and optimize multi-layered fiber composite structures to increase mechanical
properties and long-term properties [7,8]. For example, Kazemi et al. [7] studied
the effects of different parameters such as wood content, layer thickness, and
configuration (symmetric and asymmetric) of three-layered structural composites
made from post-consumer waste plastics and wood flour. They showed that flex-
ural properties were controlled mainly by the skins. Moreover, the results clearly
showed that layer configuration influenced flexural properties and asymmetric
structures show a higher potential to optimize strength and weight. Manalo
et al. [9] studied the flexural behavior and failure mechanisms of composite sand-
wich beams based on glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) skins and modified
phenolic cores. They showed that beams loaded in the edgewise direction failed at
a higher load with less deflection compared to specimens tested in the flatwise
position. Daniel and Abot investigated the effect of GFRP skin thickness on
flexural stiffness and core shear modulus of sandwich panels made of polyureth-
ane foam cores with two different span lengths (200 and 400 mm) [10]. The results
showed that stiffness was highly dependent upon skin thickness and the use of
inserts.
In another investigation, the mechanical behavior of panels made of wood ven-
eers of Aleppo pine as face sheets and cork agglomerate as core was evaluated [11].
The final results revealed that multi-layered sandwich panels had higher strength
750 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 17(6)

and increasing the number of layers from 1 to 4 improved the mechanical perform-
ance of the structures. Fam and Sharaf [12] studied the flexural properties of sand-
wich panels based on low density polyurethane foam core and GFRP skins with
different rib configurations. They showed that depending on rib configuration,
strength and stiffness increased by 44–140% compared to sandwich panels without
ribs. Moreover, they reported that the ultimate strength of the panels was similar to
concrete panels reinforced with heavy steel of equal size, but the sandwich panels
were 9–14% lighter.
Sharaf et al. [13] studied the influence of polyurethane foam core density on the
Fexural strength and stiffness of sandwich panels. The results showed that increas-
ing core density enhanced the structural performance, while having negative effects
on insulation properties. Styles et al. [14] investigated the influence of core thick-
ness on failure mechanisms of an aluminum foam core/thermoplastic composite
faces sandwich structure. They showed that skin wrinkling and skin fracture as well
as core cracking were dominant failure modes in thinner samples, while core inden-
tation occurred mainly in thicker samples. Moreover, they showed that increasing
skin thickness eliminated the problem of core indentation, but increased the occur-
rence of core shear cracking.
To pursue on the mechanical optimization of sandwich structures, this study
focuses on the effect of design parameters such as hemp content, foaming agent
concentration and skin thickness on the flexural properties, and failure mode of
three layer sandwich panels with and without a foam core. In particular, asymmet-
ric structures are investigated.

Materials and methods

Materials
High density polyethylene (HDPE) with a melting temperature of 126 C, a melt
index of 0.15 g/10 min (190 C, 2.16 kg) and a density of 930 kg/m3 was supplied by
Petromont Canada and used as the matrix. Hemp fiber (length between 1 and
1.2 mm) with a density of 1.34 g/cm3 was kindly supplied by the Canadian Hemp
Trade Alliance. Maleic anhydride-grafted polyethylene (Epolene C-26, Westlake
Chemical Corporation) was used as a coupling agent to improve compatibility,
dispersion, and adhesion between HDPE and hemp fibers in the composite. This
coupling agent has a density of 919 kg/m3 and a melting point of 121 C.
Azodicarbonamide (ACA) (Celogen AZ 150, Lion Copolymer) with a decompos-
ing temperature range of 190–220 C and gas yield of 220 cm3/g was used as chem-
ical foaming agent.
HDPE composites with different hemp content (0% wt., 10% wt., 20% wt., 30%
wt. and 40% wt.) and HDPE with different ACA content (0% wt., 0.6% wt. and
1.2% wt.) were prepared as described below to produce the skin and core layers,
respectively.
Kavianiboroujeni et al. 751

Processing
Sample production can be summarized in three steps: 1) skin production, 2) core
production, and 3) sandwich panel production. The production of the skins started
with hemp drying overnight in an oven at 80 C to remove humidity. Then, HDPE/
MAPE (9% wt. based on total hemp weight) and hemp (0% wt., 10% wt., 20%
wt., 30% wt. and 40% wt.) were introduced in the first and fourth zone of a co-
rotating twin-screw extruder (Leistritz ZSE-27, L/D ¼ 40), respectively. The screw
speed was 100 r/min and the temperature profile for the 10 zones was set at: 180˚ C/
185 ˚ C/195 ˚ C/195 ˚ C/195 ˚ C/195 ˚ C/195 ˚ C/195 ˚ C/200 ˚ C/200 ˚ C. The extruded com-
pounds were pelletized and dried at 80 C overnight in an oven. Then, composite
layers with different hemp content and thickness were produced by compression
molding at 170 C and under a load of 3 ton by a Carver laboratory press. In this
step, the compounds were first preheated for 3 min and pressed for 5 min in molds
with dimensions of 250  250 mm2 with 1–2 mm thickness.
To produce the core, HDPE and ACA (0%, 0.6% and 1.2% wt.) were intro-
duced in the first zone of the same extruder with a screw speed of 100 r/min and a
lower temperature profile for the 10 zones to limit ACA thermal decomposition in
compounding: 160 ˚ C/165 ˚ C/165 ˚ C/165 ˚ C/165 ˚ C/165 ˚ C/165 ˚ C/160 ˚ C/160 ˚ C/155 ˚ C.
Then, the layers of HDPE with 0% ACA (4 mm thick) and layers of HDPE with
0.6% and 1.2% ACA with (1 mm thick) were produced by compression molding
using a Carver press at 160 C under a load of 3 ton. The temperature was again
selected to limit foaming during core compression molding.
In the last step, according to the desired final configuration, a core layer was
sandwiched between two skins and transferred to a mold with dimensions of
250  250  7 mm3. The sandwich structures were preheated at 225 C for 2 min
and then 3 ton of load was applied on the mold. Due to the high temperature, ACA
decomposition started and pressure increased inside the mold. As soon as the
pressure started to decrease (gas dissolution and gas loss), the pressure over the
mold was removed and the sandwich panel was cooled down to stabilize the formed
bubbles (foam expansion).
For sandwich panels with 0% ACA in the core, the skins, and HDPE core were
transferred to the same mold. Then, the mold was preheated for 3 min and pressed
for 5 min under a load of 3 ton at a temperature of 170 C. Finally, the sandwich
panel was cooled down and removed from the mold for analysis.

Sample coding
The three layer structures are presented with respect to their stacking configuration
as: A(y)-X-B(z) where A and B represent the hemp content in the skin (% wt.) and
X represents the ACA content (% wt.) in the core, while y and z represent the
thickness of the layer (mm). For flexural testing, the first letter in the sample coding
represents the layer in extrados. For example, the sample 10(2)-1.2-40(1) represents
a sandwich panel with 10% hemp and 2 mm thick skin in the extrados, a foam core
752 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 17(6)

Figure 1. Example of sample coding: 10(2)-1.2-40(1).

with 1.2% wt. ACA, and 1 mm thick with 40% hemp skin in the intrados.
A schematic representation in presented in Figure 1.

Apparent density
Density measurements were performed with a gas (nitrogen) pycnometer model
Ultrapyc 1200 e (Quantachrome Instruments, USA). The reported values are the
average of at least three measurements.

Microscopy
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to investigate the composite morph-
ology, state of interfacial adhesion between each component, interlaminar adhe-
sion, and foam core morphology. A JEOL model JSM-840 A was used to take
micrographs at different magnifications. The samples were fractured in liquid nitro-
gen, coated with a thin layer of gold/palladium alloy and then examined at 15 kV.
Also, a stereo-microscope (Olympus, SZ-PT) was used to measure the thickness of
each layer and study the state of interlaminar adhesion between each layer. All
images were analyzed via Image-Pro Plus 4.5 (Media Cybernetics, USA).
SEM pictures of 10 different samples with the same foaming agent content were
investigated to report the average cell size and cell density. Assuming an isotropic
distribution of spherical cells, the cell diameter was obtained directly from the
software. Cell density (NF), defined as the number of cells (n) per cubic centimeter
of foam, was calculated using [15,16]:

NF ¼ ðn=AÞ3=2 ð1Þ

where A is the area analyzed [17].

Mechanical testing
Flexural test. Three-point bending flexural tests (support span to overall thickness
ratio of 16:1) were conducted at room temperature using a crosshead speed of
3 mm/min on an Instron model 5565 with a 500 N load cell at room temperature
Kavianiboroujeni et al. 753

according to ASTM D790. Samples with dimensions of 120  15  7 mm3 were cut
from the molded sandwich panels. At least five samples were tested to report the
average flexural modulus (E), flexural strength ( max), and strain at maximum
stress ("max). The flexural modulus and strength were calculated as:

E ¼ L3 m=ð4bd2 Þ ð2Þ

max ¼ 3SL=ð2bd2 Þ ð3Þ

where L, b, and d are support span, width, and depth of the sample, respectively.
Parameters m and S are the slope in the initial linear part of the load–deflection
curve and the maximum load supported by the beam.

Results and discussion

Density
Panel density is listed in Table 1. As expected, density increases with hemp content,
but decreases with ACA content. For example, the structures 40(1)-0-40(2) and
40(2)-0-40(2) have the highest density (0.998 g/cm3), while samples 10(1)-1.2-10(2)

Table 1. Density of the structures (0.001g/cm3).

0% 0.6% 1.2% 0% 0.6% 1.2%

Sample ACA ACA ACA Sample ACA ACA ACA

10(1)-X-10(2) 0.946 0.768 0.684 10(2)-X-10(1) 0.946 0.768 0.684

10(1)-X-20(2) 0.955 0.776 0.691 10(2)-X-20(1) 0.950 0.772 0.688
10(1)-X-30(2) 0.970 0.788 0.704 10(2)-X-30(1) 0.958 0.778 0.694
10(1)-X-40(2) 0.981 0.797 0.713 10(2)-X-40(1) 0.963 0.783 0.698
20(1)-X-10(2) 0.950 0.772 0.688 20(2)-X-10(1) 0.955 0.776 0.691
20(1)-X-20(2) 0.959 0.779 0.695 20(2)-X-20(1) 0.959 0.779 0.695
20(1)-X-30(2) 0.974 0.791 0.707 20(2)-X-30(1) 0.967 0.785 0.701
20(1)-X-40(2) 0.985 0.801 0.716 20(2)-X-40(1) 0.972 0.790 0.706
30(1)-X-10(2) 0.958 0.778 0.694 30(2)-X-10(1) 0.970 0.788 0.704
30(1)-X-20(2) 0.967 0.785 0.701 30(2)-X-20(1) 0.974 0.791 0.707
30(1)-X-30(2) 0.981 0.797 0.713 30(2)-X-30(1) 0.981 0.797 0.713
30(1)-X-40(2) 0.993 0.807 0.723 30(2)-X-40(1) 0.987 0.802 0.718
40(1)-X-10(2) 0.963 0.783 0.698 40(2)-X-10(1) 0.981 0.797 0.713
40(1)-X-20(2) 0.972 0.790 0.706 40(2)-X-20(1) 0.985 0.801 0.716
40(1)-X-30(2) 0.987 0.802 0.718 40(2)-X-30(1) 0.993 0.807 0.723
40(1)-X-40(2) 0.998 0.811 0.727 40(2)-X-40(1) 0.998 0.811 0.727
754 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 17(6)

and 10(2)-1.2-10(1) have the lowest density (0.684 g/cm3). On average, the density
of the structures with 0.6% and 1.2% ACA are about 18% and 27% lower than
neat HDPE (0.930 g/cm3).

Morphology
Morphology and interfacial interaction between layers were investigated using
SEM. Figure 2 presents SEM pictures of samples 10(2)-1.2-10(1) and 30(1)-0-30(2).
The results show that increasing the foaming agent content in the core led to
higher cell density and lower average cell diameter [18]. For example, when the
foaming agent content increased from 0.6% to 1.2%, cell size decreased from 387
to 156 mm, but cell density increased from 4.26  103 to 8.88  104 cells/cm3.
In addition, SEM pictures show that good interlaminar adhesion between the
skins and the core was achieved. As seen in Figure 2, no distinct boundary between
each layer was observed which indicates that good adhesion was achieved. These
good melt weld-lines were the reasons for low occurrence of skin-core debonding
and core shear failure which are generally the main failure modes in multi-layer
structures under loads [19,20]. These failure modes cause serious problems and

Figure 2. Typical SEM micrographs of the sandwich panels produced. (a) SEM picture of a
sandwich panel cross-section for sample 20(2)-1.2-20(1). (b) and (c) 10(2)-1.2-10(1). (d) 30(1)-
0-30(2). In all cases, good interlaminar adhesion between the skins and the foam core is
observed (no void or gap).
Kavianiboroujeni et al. 755

Figure 3. Three-point bending of multi-layer sandwich panels: (a) 40(2)-1.2-40(1) and (b)
40(2)-0-40(1). It can be seen that the main failure mode of the sandwich panels is skin failure
(no delamination).

decrease the load-bearing capacity of these structures [21]. In our case, during the
flexural tests, no skin-core debonding, compression buckling or core shear failure
was observed. The main failure mode was tensile skin failure, especially for the skin
layers under load with high hemp content because composites (skins) with lower
hemp content have higher deformability and can withstand loads better. On the
contrary, increasing the hemp content decreased skin elasticity leading to prema-
ture failure and crack propagation towards the core as observed in Figure 3 for two
samples with and without a foam core. To postpone skin failure and improve
deformability, asymmetric structures were developed where the lowest hemp con-
tent is placed in the extrados layer [7].

Flexural properties
Multi-layer structures without foam core. Flexural properties of three-layer sandwich
panels such as flexural modulus (E), strength ( max), and strain at maximum stress
("max) were measured. Flexural properties of structures without a foam core are
presented in Table 2. Increasing the total amount of hemp content in both skins led
to higher flexural modulus. For example, increasing hemp content in a structure
from 10% (10(1)-0-10(2)) to 40% (40(1)-0-40(2)) increased flexural modulus from
1124 to 1676 MPa (49% improvement). Moreover, increasing hemp content in the
extrados layer was more effective in comparison to the intrados layer. For instance,
flexural modulus increased from 1205 MPa for 10(2)-0-10(1) to 1405 MPa for 10(2)-
0-40(1) which is an increase of 17%, but compared to 40(2)-0-10(1) with a flexural
modulus of 1466 MPa, the improvement was 22%.
Furthermore, the effect of skin thickness was investigated by comparing the
flexural modulus of A(1)-0-B(2) and A(2)-0-B(1) in Table 2. Comparing the
values of flexural modulus for both structures by applying the load on skins with
different thickness showed, when the load was applied on the thicker skin, higher
flexural modulus [22, 23]. For instance, the flexural modulus of 40(2)-0-40(1) was
1812 MPa which was 8% higher than the flexural modulus of 40(1)-0-40(2) with a
flexural modulus of 1676 MPa.
For all the structures without a foam core, the results showed that increasing
hemp content in the skins had a small effect on flexural strength. This behavior was
756 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 17(6)

Table 2. Mechanical properties of the panels with HDPE core.

Sample E (MPa)  max (MPa) "max (%) Sample E (MPa)  max (MPa) "max (%)

10(1)-0-10(2) 1124 (96) 20.2 (0.2) 18.6 (0.4) 10(2)-0-10(1) 1205 (39) 20.5 (0.3) 19.3 (0.3)
10(1)-0-20(2) 1191 (209) 19.7 (0.3) 18.4 (0.2) 10(2)-0-20(1) 1301 (77) 20.1 (0.2) 18.5 (0.4)
10(1)-0-30(2) 1278 (25) 19.4 (0.4) 17.3 (0.5) 10(2)-0-30(1) 1386 (47) 19.8 (0.7) 17.9 (0.3)
10(1)-0-40(2) 1338 (167) 19.2 (0.7) 16.4 (0.2) 10(2)-0-40(1) 1405 (22) 19.3 (0.9) 17.7 (0.5)
20(1)-0-10(2) 1209 (101) 21.1 (0.7) 17.6 (0.1) 20(2)-0-10(1) 1300 (143) 21.5 (1.1) 18.0 (1.2)
20(1)-0-20(2) 1285 (62) 20.6 (0.2) 17.3 (0.2) 20(2)-0-20(1) 1326 (56) 21.2 (0.1) 17.4 (0.1)
20(1)-0-30(2) 1333 (73) 20.2 (0.3) 16.1 (0.5) 20(2)-0-30(1) 1377 (25) 20.6 (0.8) 16.8 (0.5)
20(1)-0-40(2) 1394 (18) 19.9 (0.6) 15.0 (1.4) 20(2)-0-40(1) 1468 (22) 20.3 (0.4) 16.4 (0.1)
30(1)-0-10(2) 1297 (29) 22.2 (0.5) 14.6 (1.4) 30(2)-0-10(1) 1334 (121) 22.7 (0.2) 15.6 (0.8)
30(1)-0-20(2) 1336 (42) 21.7 (0.6) 14.1 (1.2) 30(2)-0-20(1) 1409 (49) 22.2 (0.5) 15.0 (1.0)
30(1)-0-30(2) 1421 (52) 21.4 (0.3) 13.0 (1.0) 30(2)-0-30(1) 1494 (72) 21.9 (0.7) 14.2 (1.0)
30(1)-0-40(2) 1553 (49) 20.9 (0.8) 12.6 (0.7) 30(2)-0-40(1) 1623 (139) 21.5 (0.2) 13.7 (0.8)
40(1)-0-10(2) 1413 (25) 23.3 (0.5) 12.0 (0.4) 40(2)-0-10(1) 1466 (66) 23.6 (0.4) 13.3 (0.8)
40(1)-0-20(2) 1520 (189) 22.8 (0.8) 10.6 (1.0) 40(2)-0-20(1) 1627 (132) 23.2 (0.5) 12.2 (0.5)
40(1)-0-30(2) 1585 (121) 22.2 (0.5) 9.4 (0.6) 40(2)-0-30(1) 1747 (110) 22.9 (1.0) 11.1 (0.5)
40(1)-0-40(2) 1676 (17) 21.7 (0.6) 9.0 (0.8) 40(2)-0-40(1) 1812 (48) 22.6 (1.2) 10.3 (0.9)

Values in parenthesis are standard deviations.

reported by Kazemi et al. [7], who explained that two mechanisms are controlling
the flexural properties of multi-layer panels: rigidity with reinforcing content and
deformability with decreasing reinforcement content. As shown in Table 2, higher
hemp content in the extrados and lower hemp content in the intrados increased the
flexural strength of the structures. For instance, the flexural strength of 40(1)-0-
10(2) was 23.2 MPa and about 7% higher than 21.7 MPa for 40(1)-0-40(2).
Moreover, the results showed that the flexural properties of the sandwiches are
function of skin thickness. When the thicker skin is in the extrados, the sandwich
panel had higher flexural strength. For instance, flexural strength of 40(2)-0-40(1) is
22.6 MPa and about 4% higher than 40(1)-0-40(2).
Increasing total hemp content in both skins decreased the strain at maximum
stress. Sample 10(1)-0-10(2) with 19.2% has the highest strain at maximum stress,
while sample 40(2)-0-40(1) with 9% has the lowest. Furthermore, comparing the
structures with the same hemp content showed that sandwich panels with higher
hemp content in the extrados skin have lower "max. As an example, "max of 40(1)-0-
20(2) is 10.6%, while "max of 20(1)-0-40(2) is 15% which is about 42% higher.
Moreover, increasing skin thickness in the extrados affected "max. As an example,
the structure 40(1)-0-30(2) had a "max of 9.4%, while "max of 40(2)-0-30(1) was
11.1% which represents about 18% increase.

Multi-layer structures with foam core. Flexural properties of the panels with a foam
core are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Flexural modulus values for both 0.6% and
Kavianiboroujeni et al. 757

Table 3. Mechanical properties of the panels with 0.6% ACA.

Sample E (MPa)  max (MPa) "max (%) Sample E (MPa)  max (MPa) "max (%)

10(1)-0.6-10(2) 1051 (92) 19.7 (0.3) 17.0 (0.7) 10(2)-0.6-10(1) 1093 (37) 20.2 (0.2) 18.0 (0.2)
10(1)-0.6-20(2) 1113 (33) 19.4 (0.3) 15.6 (0.5) 10(2)-0.6-20(1) 1162 (92) 19.9 (0.3) 17.0 (0.4)
10(1)-0.6-30(2) 1143 (52) 19.0 (1.0) 14.9 (0.5) 10(2)-0.6-30(1) 1225 (32) 19.5 (0.2) 16.1 (0.3)
10(1)-0.6-40(2) 1188 (36) 18.8 (0.5) 13.9 (1.0) 10(2)-0.6-40(1) 1258 (27) 19.1 (0.5) 15.7 (0.5)
20(1)-0.6-10(2) 1126 (42) 20.5 (0.5) 15.2 (0.8) 20(2)-0.6-10(1) 1149 (57) 20.9 (0.3) 16.3 (0.7)
20(1)-0.6-20(2) 1178 (102) 20.2 (0.6) 14.2 (0.7) 20(2)-0.6-20(1) 1193 (114) 20.6 (0.3) 15.2 (0.2)
20(1)-0.6-30(2) 1222 (128) 19.8 (0.7) 13.1 (1.2) 20(2)-0.6-30(1) 1256 (25) 20.2 (0.3) 14.9 (0.3)
20(1)-0.6-40(2) 1249 (106) 19.2 (0.4) 12.9 (0.3) 20(2)-0.6-40(1) 1287 (114) 19.9 (0.5) 13.8 (0.1)
30(1)-0.6-10(2) 1242 (109) 21.5 (0.3) 13.2 (0.2) 30(2)-0.6-10(1) 1278 (102) 22.1 (0.6) 13.9 (1.2)
30(1)-0.6-20(2) 1289 (117) 21.2 (0.8) 12.4 (0.9) 30(2)-0.6-20(1) 1389 (101) 21.7 (0.9) 12.8 (0.5)
30(1)-0.6-30(2) 1375 (53) 20.9 (0.5) 11.2 (0.4) 30(2)-0.6-30(1) 1417 (48) 21.2 (0.6) 10.8 (0.6)
30(1)-0.6-40(2) 1419 (83) 20.3 (0.7) 10.4 (0.8) 30(2)-0.6-40(1) 1472 (66) 20.8 (0.4) 10.3 (0.3)
40(1)-0.6-10(2) 1365 (95) 22.5 (1.3) 10.8 (0.3) 40(2)-0.6-10(1) 1500 (50) 23.0 (0.7) 11.9 (0.8)
40(1)-0.6-20(2) 1435 (61) 22.0 (0.3) 10.4 (0.2) 40(2)-0.6-20(1) 1555 (50) 22.4 (0.6) 10.3 (0.6)
40(1)-0.6-30(2) 1499 (113) 21.7 (0.7) 9.2 (0.8) 40(2)-0.6-30(1) 1618 (83) 22.1 (1.1) 9.7 (0.5)
40(1)-0.6-40(2) 1523 (136) 21.4 (1.0) 9.0 (0.3) 40(2)-0.6-40(1) 1634 (150) 21.6 (0.5) 8.8 (0.3)

Values in parenthesis are standard deviations.

Table 4. Mechanical properties of the panels with 1.2% ACA.

Sample E (MPa)  max (MPa) "max (%) Sample E (MPa)  max (MPa) "max (%)

10(1)-1.2-10(2) 1030 (92) 19.6 (0.5) 16.8 (1.0) 10(2)-1.2-10(1) 1082 (67) 20.2 (0.3) 17.0 (0.2)
10(1)-1.2-20(2) 1084 (49) 19.3 (0.5) 15.6 (0.3) 10(2)-1.2-20(1) 1145 (111) 20.0 (0.8) 16.1 (0.7)
10(1)-1.2-30(2) 1116 (63) 19.1 (0.2) 14.9 (0.2) 10(2)-1.2-30(1) 1191 (74) 19.4 (1.1) 15.2 (0.3)
10(1)-1.2-40(2) 1160 (92) 18.8 (0.3) 13.9 (1.0) 10(2)-1.2-40(1) 1226 (22) 18.9 (0.7) 14.4 (0.4)
20(1)-1.2-10(2) 1108 (122) 20.6 (0.3) 15.2 (1.0) 20(2)-1.2-10(1) 1138 (104) 20.8 (1.5) 15.8 (0.7)
20(1)-1.2-20(2) 1135 (52) 20.1 (0.2) 14.2 (0.2) 20(2)-1.2-20(1) 1179 (27) 20.5 (0.5) 14.6 (0.6)
20(1)-1.2-30(2) 1174 (35) 19.7 (0.6) 13.1 (0.2) 20(2)-1.2-30(1) 1206 (67) 20.4 (0.7) 13.5 (0.2)
20(1)-1.2-40(2) 1220 (57) 19.4 (1.4) 12.9 (0.2) 20(2)-1.2-40(1) 1247 (109) 20.1 (1.4) 13.3 (0.5)
30(1)-1.2-10(2) 1203 (113) 21.4 (0.7) 13.2 (0.8) 30(2)-1.2-10(1) 1265 (72) 21.8 (0.2) 13.9 (0.6)
30(1)-1.2-20(2) 1259 (57) 21.3 (1.0) 12.4 (0.9) 30(2)-1.2-20(1) 1318 (113) 21.5 (0.5) 13.0 (0.3)
30(1)-1.2-30(2) 1319 (120) 20.8 (0.9) 11.2 (1.0) 30(2)-1.2-30(1) 1336 (79) 21.0 (1.6) 12.3 (0.8)
30(1)-1.2-40(2) 1344 (53) 20.1 (0.2) 10.4 (0.9) 30(2)-1.2-40(1) 1371 (101) 20.6 (0.5) 11.0 (0.9)
40(1)-1.2-10(2) 1277 (106) 22.4 (0.8) 10.8 (0.6) 40(2)-1.2-10(1) 1327 (113) 22.8 (0.5) 11.2 (0.6)
40(1)-1.2-20(2) 1324 (92) 22.2 (0.3) 10.4 (0.3) 40(2)-1.2-20(1) 1353 (89) 22.3 (0.2) 10.8 (0.6)
40(1)-1.2-30(2) 1396 (127) 21.5 (0.9) 9.2 (0.3) 40(2)-1.2-30(1) 1414 (82) 21.6 (0.7) 10.0 (0.4)
40(1)-1.2-40(2) 1423 (92) 21.2 (0.9) 9.0 (0.3) 40(2)-1.2-40(1) 1456 (96) 21.5 (0.4) 9.6 (0.3)

Values in parenthesis are standard deviations.

758 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 17(6)

1.2% ACA foam core increased with increasing total hemp content in both skins.
For the sandwich panels with 0.6% ACA, the flexural modulus increased by 45%
from 10(1)-0.6-10(2) to 40(1)-0.6-40(2) and 50% from 10(2)-0.6-10(2) to 40(2)-0.6-
40(1). Similarly, the same trends were observed for sandwich panels with 1.2%
ACA. Moreover, increasing the foaming agent content from 0% to 0.6% and 1.2%
reduced the flexural modulus. For 40(2)-X-40(1) structures, the flexural modulus
decreased from 1812 MPa to 1634 and 1456 MPa for samples with 0%, 0.6%, and
1.2% ACA core, respectively, which represent 10% and 20% decrease in flexural
modulus. This can be explained by less material available to support the stresses in
the foam core [24]. In addition, when the thicker skin is in the extrados, flexural
moduli were higher. Increasing the thickness of the skin under tension by up to two
times, improved the flexural modulus of the sandwich panels by up to a maximum
of 10%. On the other hand, increasing the total hemp content in both skins by up
to two times, increased the flexural modulus by 25%. For example, flexural modu-
lus of 20(1)-0.6-20(2) increased from 1178 MPa to 1747 MPa (30% increase) for
40(1)-0.6-40(2). Consequently, increasing total hemp content in both skins was
more effective to improve the flexural modulus compared to increasing the skin
thickness.
The flexural strength results for sandwich panels with a foam core are presented in
Tables 3 and 4. Comparing the flexural strength of sandwich panels with 0.6% and
1.2% ACA showed that the core did not influence the flexural strength of the sand-
wich panels which was mainly controlled by the skins. For example, the flexural
strength of 30(1)-0.6-30(2) was 20.9 MPa compared to 20.8 MPa for 30(1)-1.2-30(2).
The effect of skin layers was investigated by comparing the results of flexural
strength for different structures. The flexural strength increased with hemp content
in the extrados. But, when the hemp content in the intrados was increased, the
flexural strength decreased. This means that higher flexural strength could be
obtained when the skin with the highest modulus (hemp content) was placed in
the extrados and the intrados had the highest elasticity (lower hemp content). For
instance, flexural strength of 30(2)-1.2-10(1) (21.8 MPa) was 6% higher than 30(2)-
1.2-40(1) with a flexural strength of 20.6 MPa. Moreover, depending on loading
direction, different flexural strengths were obtained for a structure. For instance,
flexural strength of 40(1)-0.6-10(2) (22.5 MPa) was 16% higher than 10(2)-0.6-40(1)
(19.1 MPa) which confirmed the dominant role of the skins on flexural strength of
sandwich panels [25].
Similar to structures without a foam core, the strain at maximum stress of the
structures with foam core decreased as hemp content increased. For instance,
10(2)-0.6-10(1) has a "max of 18.0%, while sample 40(2)-0.6-40(1) has a "max of
8.8%. The structure with a lower hemp content skin in extrados had higher "max.
This behavior shows that the elastic properties of the skin in the extrados are
controlling the "max of the whole structure. The "max of 10(1)-1.2-40(2) was
13.9%, while sample 40(2)-1.2-10(1) had a "max of 11.2% which was 24% lower.
Higher elasticity of the extrados skin played a dominant role in controlling "max of
the structure.
Kavianiboroujeni et al. 759

Furthermore, comparing "max of the structures with the same skin in extrados,
but different skin in intrados showed that this skin had a small role in controlling
deformability. For instance, "max of 20(2)-1.2-10(1) (15.8%) compared to 20(2)-1.2-
40(1) (13.3%) was slightly reduced. Comparing the "max of structures with different
skin thickness showed that thicker skin in extrados led to higher "max. For instance,
"max of 30(2)-1.2-30(1) is by 10% higher than "max of 30(1)-1.2-30(2).
Comparing "max of structures with different core density (0%, 0.6% and 1.2%
ACA) showed that core properties had a minor influence on the deformability of
the sandwich structures because in a flexural test the core carries less load com-
pared to the skin layers [25]. But the structures with higher foaming agent content
had lower "max. For example, the structure 30(1)-0.6-20(2) had a "max of 12.4%,
while the "max of 30(1)-1.2-20(2) was 12.1% (6% decrease). Accordingly, the struc-
tures without a foam core had higher "max. For example, the "max of 20(2)-X-30(1)
without a foam core was 16.8%, while "max of structures with 0.6% and 1.2% ACA
foam core decreased to 14.9% and 13.5%, respectively.
Furthermore, the effect of foam core was investigated by comparing the results
for specific flexural strength (flexural strength divided by density) in Figure 4 and
Figure 5. The results showed that structures with a foam core have much higher
specific flexural strength. Comparing the results for foamed structures, the sand-
wich panels with 1.2% ACA core showed higher specific properties compared to
0.6% ACA foam core structures. Although the sandwich panels with foam core
had similar flexural strength, the main difference was final density. As an example,
the specific flexural strength of 20(2)-0-40(1) was 20.9 MPa.cm3/g, which is 21%
lower than 20(2)-0.6-40(1) with 25.2 MPa.cm3/g and 36% lower than 20(2)-1.2-
40(1) with 28.5 MPa.cm3/g. This was the most noticeable feature of foam core

Figure 4. Specific flexural strength of structures with A(1)-X-B(2) configuration.

760 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 17(6)

structures. Although, the foam core did not increase the flexural strength of the
structures, it produced superior specific flexural strength.
In addition, the influence of core type was studied by comparing the specific
flexural modulus of the sandwich panels. As observed in Figures 6 and 7, foaming
also increased the specific flexural modulus of the sandwich panels. For instance,
the specific flexural modulus of 30(1)-1.2-20(2) and 30(1)-0.6-20(2) are 30% and

Figure 5. Specific flexural strength of structures with A(2)-X-B(1) configuration.

Figure 6. Specific stiffness of structures with A(1)-X-B(2) configuration.

Kavianiboroujeni et al. 761

Figure 7. Specific stiffness of sandwich panels with A(2)-X-B(1) configuration.

Figure 8. Typical flexural stress–strain curves for different sandwich panels with or without
foam core.

19% higher than 30(1)-0-20(2). In the case of 30(2)-X-20(1), the results followed the
same trend and the specific flexural modulus of sandwich panels with 1.2% and
0.6% ACA were 1864 and 1755 MPa.cm3/g, which were 29% and 21% higher than
1447 MPa.cm3/g for 30(2)-0-20(1).
Figure 8 is presented to understand better the flexural stress–strain behavior of
some sandwich panels with different configurations. It can be seen that sandwich
762 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 17(6)

Figure 9. Optical micrographs of different samples under 5% (left column) and 20% (right
column) flexural strain. (a) and (b): 10(2)-0-10(1), c) and (d): 40(2)-0-40(1), (e) and (f): 10(2)-
1.2-10(1), (g) and (h): 40(2)-1.2-40(1).

panels with higher total hemp (both skins) have higher flexural stress. For 40(2)-0-
40(1), 40(1)-0-40(2), 40(2)-1.2-40(1), and 40(1)-1.2-40(2), the maximum flexural
stress were 22.6, 21.7, 21.5, and 21.2 MPa compared to 20.5, 20.2, 20.2, and
19.6 MPa for 10(2)-0-10(1), 10(1)-0-10(2), 10(2)-1.2-10(1), and 10(1)-1.2-10(2). On
the other hand, lower amount of hemp content in the sandwich panels gave them
higher strain. Samples 10(2)-0-10(1), 10(1)-0-10(2), 10(2)-1.2-10(1), and 10(1)-1.2-
10(2) have "max of 19.3%, 18.6%, 17%, and 16.8% compared to 10.3%, 9.0%,
9.6%, and 9% for 40(2)-0-40(1),40(1)-0-40(2), 40(2)-1.2-40(1), and 40(1)-1.2-40(2),
respectively. Moreover, comparing the curves showed that thicker skin in extrados
improved the flexural stress and "max of sandwich panels with the same core.
The optical micrographs of some samples under 5% and 20% strain are
presented in Figure 9. As it can be seen, at 5% strain all samples remained
unbroken, but by increasing strain sample with higher hemp content and foam
core started breaking and the fractures penetrated through the thickness of
sandwich panels.
Kavianiboroujeni et al. 763

Conclusion
In this work, three-layer sandwich panels with and without foam core were pro-
duced based on HDPE and hemp fiber via compression molding. The effect of fiber
content, layer thickness, and blowing agent content on the physical and flexural
properties was studied. Morphological characterization of the structures was also
discussed.
The morphological properties of the foam core (cell size and cell density) as well
as overall density were affected by the foaming agent content. Increasing foaming
agent concentration increased cell density, reduced cell size and decreased the
density of the structures. Addition of 1.2% of ACA reduced the overall density
of the sandwich panels by 27%. Moreover, the SEM results confirmed that perfect
interlaminar adhesion between the skins and the core for both foamed and
unfoamed structures was achieved. In all cases, the main failure mode was tensile
failure of the skin in extrados.
For all the sandwich panels, with or without a foam core, flexural modulus and
flexural strength depend on the skin fiber content and their thickness. On the other
hand, deformability of the structures decreased with increasing hemp content. It
was also observed that the skin layers have more influence on the flexural proper-
ties compared to core properties.
Based on the results obtained, the specific flexural strength was mainly con-
trolled by the core density. The results showed that the specific flexural strength
structures with 0.6% and 1.2% ACA foam core were 21% and 36% higher than for
an unfoamed one (0% ACA). Similar results were obtained for the specific flexural
modulus; i.e. the values are mainly controlled by core density. The addition of
0.6% or 1.2% ACA in the core increased the specific flexural modulus by 21%
and 29% compared to structures without a foam core.
Based on the samples produced, it can be concluded that a wide range of phys-
ical and flexural properties can be covered by selecting different panel design,
especially when asymmetric structures are studied. Nevertheless, more work
would be needed to study other mechanical properties like impact strength or
sandwich panels based on more than three layers.

Acknowledgments
The technical help of Mr Yann Giroux was also much appreciated.

Declaration of conflicting interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada (NSERC).
764 Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials 17(6)

References
1. Kumar MV and Soragaon B. Fabrication and evaluation of multilayered polyurethane
foam core sandwich panels for static flexural stiffness. Procedia Eng 2014; 97:
1227–1236.
2. He M and Hu W. A study on composite honeycomb sandwich panel structure. Mater
Des 2008; 29: 709–713.
3. Zenkert D and Burman M. Tension, compression and shear fatigue of a closed cell
polymer foam. Compos Sci Technol 2009; 69: 785–792.
4. Gibson LJ and Ashby MF. Cellular solids: structure and properties, 2nd ed. Oxford:
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
5. Petras A and Sutcliffe MPF. Failure mode maps for honeycomb sandwich panels.
Compos Struct 1999; 44: 237–252.
6. Meifeng H and Wenbin H. A study on composite honeycomb sandwich panel structure.
Mater Des 2008; 29: 709–713.
7. Kazemi Y, Cloutier A and Rodrigue D. Design analysis of three-layered structural
composites based on post-consumer recycled plastics and wood residues. Compos Part
A 2013; 53: 1–9.
8. Yazicia M, Wrightb J, Bertinb D, et al. Experimental and numerical study of foam filled
corrugated core steel sandwich structures subjected to blast loading. Compos Struct
2014; 110: 98–109.
9. Manalo AC, Aravinthan T, Karunasena W, et al. Flexural behaviour of structural fibre
composite sandwich beams in flatwise and edgewise positions. Compos Struct 2010; 92:
984–995.
10. Daniel IM and Abot JL. Fabrication, testing and analysis of composite sandwich
beams. Compos Sci Technol 2000; 60: 2455–2463.
11. Lakreb N, Bezzazi B and Pereira H. Mechanical behavior of multilayered sandwich
panels of wood veneer and a core of cork agglomerates. Mater Des 2015; 65: 627–636.
12. Fam A and Sharaf T. Flexural performance of sandwich panels comprising polyureth-
ane core and GFRP skins and ribs of various configurations. Compos Struct 2010; 92:
2927–2935.
13. Sharaf T, Shawkat W and Fam A. Structural performance of sandwich wall panels with
different foam core densities in one-way bending. J Compos Mater 2010; 44: 2249–2263.
14. Styles M, Compston P and Kalyanasundaram S. The effect of core thickness on the
flexural behaviour of aluminium foam sandwich structures. Compos Struct 2007; 80:
532–538.
15. Kumar V and Suh NP. A process for making microcellular thermoplastic parts. Polym
Eng Sci 1990; 30: 1323–1329.
16. Kumar V and Weller J. Production of microcellular polycarbonate using carbon dioxide
for bubble nucleation. J Eng Ind 1994; 116: 413–420.
17. Gosselin R and Rodrigue D. Cell morphology analysis of high density polymer foams.
Polym Test 2005; 24: 1027–1035.
18. Klempner D and Sendijarevic V. Polymeric foams and foam technology, 2nd ed. Munich:
Hanser, 2004.
19. Mostafa M, Shankar K and Morozov EV. Insight into the shear behavior of composite
sandwich panels with foam core. Mater Des 2013; 50: 92–101.
20. Kabir MdE, Saha MC and Jeelani S. Tensile and fracture behavior of polymer foams.
Mater Sci Eng A 2006; 429: 225–235.
Kavianiboroujeni et al. 765

21. Rizov V, Shipsha A and Zenkert D. Indentation study of foam core sandwich composite
panels. Compos Struct 2005; 69: 95–102.
22. Barzegari MR and Rodrigue D. Flexural behavior of asymmetric structural foams.
J Appl Polym Sci 2009; 113: 3103–3112.
23. Tissandier C, Vazquez Fletes RC, González-Núñez R, et al. Microcellular agave fibre-
high density polyethylene composites produced by injection molding. J Mater Sci Eng
2012; 11: 662–677.
24. Tissandier C, Vazquez Fletes RC, González-Núñez R, et al. Asymmetric microcellular
composites: morphological properties. J Cell Plast 2014; 50: 449–473.
25. Salomi A, Greco A, Pacifico T, et al. Processing and properties of a polymer/composite
double-layer laminate. Adv Polym Technol 2013; 32: 32–43.